Religion and scuba

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

...//... I went on to attend and graduate from an evangelical college (Eastern Nazarene College, in Massachusetts), ...//...
I've always wondered how you can so easily span the great Eastern/Western chasm... OH, wait. I'm only considering the US.
...//... Some of the stuff I read coming from self-defined 'Christians' is only a half step removed from the reasoning of an Isis fanatic. ...//...
IMHO, it was the First Crusade that broke the magic between the East and the West. But I wasn't there, so it probably never happened. Never mind, carry on...
 
I've always wondered how you can so easily span the great Eastern/Western chasm... OH, wait. I'm only considering the US.
IMHO, it was the First Crusade that broke the magic between the East and the West. But I wasn't there, so it probably never happened. Never mind, carry on...


When considering the effects of the Crusades a balanced view requires an awareness of the flourishing Christian Romano-Grecian civilization that existed throughout North Africa and the Middle East until Muhammad's armies subjugated and destroyed most of it. The Palestinian Christian remnants, along with the still strong Christian communities in Egypt are survivals of what Islam crushed, and are much older than Islam. The Crusaders were, in their view, attempting to restore what the Muslim Arabs had extirpated.

The Muslim wave drowned ancient civilizations during their own 'crusades', which were just as bloody as anything the European Crusaders visited upon Palestine. Their high tide included all of the Iberian Penninsula and lapped at the gates of France - Charles Martel and all that. Only the Ethiopian Christian Kingdom survived the onslaught. Ethiopian knights fought alongside the European Crusaders during the reconquest of Jerusalem. Carvings of these African knights survive on ancient panels in some European cathedrals.

The European Crusaders learned a great deal of science and art from the Muslims during the Crusades, and rediscovered some of their own lost intellectual history, but it's important to remember that a significant part of the arts and sciences that developed among the Muslims was originally acquired from the Christian North African civilization that they wiped out.

The Western European Roman Empire was overrun by Germanic barbarians. Roman civilization continued to exist only in the east, in Constantinople until that jewel was also crushed by the Muslim Turks who then proceeded to conquer and occupy south eastern Europe, remaining there for centuries until the convulsions that led to the First World War resulted in their expulsion late in the 19th Century.

When I gazed upon the remains of Hagia Sophia for the first time I nearly wept, thinking of what had been lost.

Had it not been for the combined armies of Poland and Austria in 1683 Muslims might have overrun all of Europe. That they were cheated of this final victory over Christian civilization is a part of Isis ideology, which sees Europe as part of its God-given heritage.

The Crusaders were only a few generations removed from barbarian paganism. They were a nasty bunch, but one must never forget that they were attempting, at the behest of the Roman Papacy, to restore an ancient European based civilization that earlier Muslim 'crusaders' had destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Original sin was chosen by our ancestors? This makes no sense. Original sin is sin with which one is born, an inherited sin.

Adam & Eve weren't born with a sin nature; they chose sin. Afterward, their offspring were born with a sin nature. I imagine the metaphysical theorizing involved could fill a book I'm not qualified to write.

So it is beneficial to kill toddlers before it's too late in order to save them from hell. Abortion is an absolute evil though. Makes sense.

We're forbidden from murder. Nice baiting the with abortion thing, though; many Christian's views of abortion are informed by interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture itself. Could dying young sent a person to Heaven before coming into danger of Hell. Possibly.

Have you (anyone who wants to answer) ever thought what the meaning of all of this is?

Accepting the existence of an all powerful and perfect creator of everything, believing that there was nothing and only this all powerful and perfect creator, why then would he create a world that isn't perfect to begin with? You can't blame anything for it but the only creator, after all, didn't he create everything?

What is the point in making people go through suffering first in order to make them whole later, why not just create them whole from the start?

You do have the power to create something that is perfect, but instead you create it imperfect so you can teach it lessons first in order to become(earn?) perfection later? Seems like a pointless exercise to me

I've thought about it a lot. My dog doesn't understand a lot of what I say, think & do. God is so much higher above me than I am above my dog that I am blessed to have the opportunity to understand what I can. I aim to be God's servant, not His editor or critic.

Richard.
 
All this history and religion is enjoyable reading-explains a lot about the OP'S.

History is written by the victors. Religion a panacea for the masses. For the rest
we have "reality" TV.

About time for some diving and some good pics by NWGD and others. Have not
been in the ocean for awhile. Diving is always a soothing remedy for whatever else
is going on.
 
I often wonder why it's so hard for some people to answer questions about their own faith (or lack thereof) and accept other peoples answers without it turning into a discussion about the pros and cons of their beliefs.

Why can't we just accept that just like some people like cars and others prefer SUVs, some people prefer not to believe the same thing that we do.

If according to your beliefs I'm going to hell because I don't believe the same thing then that is my problem, not yours. In this day and age everyone has heard each religions tenets and we each make a conscious choice to believe in whatever we want.

And to answer the question posed by the OP. I'm firmly in between agnostic and atheist. Which doesn't preclude me from taking bits and pieces of various religious doctrines and apply them in my life to try and become a better member of the human race.

As a student of history I found myself disliking organized religion mostly because the people in charge used it to gain power, wealth, etc... And distorted the original goals.

As an engineer my rational mind cannot but see the similarities between all the different mythologies and creation myths and therefore either discount all or approve all of them based on such similarities. But in the end there's just not enough solid evidence to make a ruling either way.

Yet I totally agree with Bob in that even if there is a God we are so insignificant in his eyes as to be virtually inexistent compared with the rest of the universe(s)



Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
 
As a student of history I found myself disliking organized religion mostly because the people in charge used it to gain power, wealth, etc... And distorted the original goals.

Seems to me that those were the original goals.
 
When considering the effects of the Crusades a balanced view requires ....
That took a bit of research on my part before I could reply...

Thank you for an excellent assimilation/synopsis of the historical time of question. Which only reinforces my belief that "truth" is bimodal. It won't ever be found in the middle or at either extreme.
 
If you actually decided to try to find a correlation between religion and scuba diving, I'm betting you'll fail to find one. In fact, I'll bed the proportion of religious to non-religious will line up pretty closely with the general population.

I think you'd win your bet.

We have had similar threads before (are scuba divers more likely to be military or ex-military; are scuba divers more likely to be gun owners; are scuba divers more likely to vote Republican), and for each of those you could make a social argument why scuba divers were more likely to emphasise one particular social group, but I just don't see it with religion.


---------- Post added July 16th, 2015 at 01:24 PM ----------

When considering the effects of the Crusades a balanced view requires an awareness of the flourishing Christian Romano-Grecian civilization that existed throughout North Africa and the Middle East until Muhammad's armies subjugated and destroyed most of it.

etc. etc.

As ever, a masterful post.
 
When considering the effects of the Crusades a balanced view requires an awareness of the flourishing Christian Romano-Grecian civilization that existed throughout North Africa and the Middle East until Muhammad's armies subjugated and destroyed most of it. The Palestinian Christian remnants, along with the still strong Christian communities in Egypt are survivals of what Islam crushed, and are much older than Islam. The Crusaders were, in their view, attempting to restore what the Muslim Arabs had extirpated.

The Muslim wave drowned ancient civilizations during their own 'crusades', which were just as bloody as anything the European Crusaders visited upon Palestine. Their high tide included all of the Iberian Penninsula and lapped at the gates of France - Charles Martel and all that. Only the Ethiopian Christian Kingdom survived the onslaught. Ethiopian knights fought alongside the European Crusaders during the reconquest of Jerusalem. Carvings of these African knights survive on ancient panels in some European cathedrals.

The European Crusaders learned a great deal of science and art from the Muslims during the Crusades, and rediscovered some of their own lost intellectual history, but it's important to remember that a significant part of the arts and sciences that developed among the Muslims was originally acquired from the Christian North African civilization that they wiped out.

The Western European Roman Empire was overrun by Germanic barbarians. Roman civilization continued to exist only in the east, in Constantinople until that jewel was also crushed by the Muslim Turks who then proceeded to conquer and occupy south eastern Europe, remaining there for centuries until the convulsions that led to the First World War resulted in their expulsion late in the 19th Century.

When I gazed upon the remains of Hagia Sophia for the first time I nearly wept, thinking of what had been lost.

Had it not been for the combined armies of Poland and Austria in 1683 Muslims might have overrun all of Europe. That they were cheated of this final victory over Christian civilization is a part of Isis ideology, which sees Europe as part of its God-given heritage.

The Crusaders were only a few generations removed from barbarian paganism. They were a nasty bunch, but one must never forget that they were attempting, at the behest of the Roman Papacy, to restore an ancient European based civilization that earlier Muslim 'crusaders' had destroyed.

I really do not know what you mean when you say Muhammad's armies destroyed Greco-Roman civilization because Muslim conquest of Byzantine happened after his death. Muhammad never fought any majjor war against Christianity. His military career was mostly against his own tribe and they were pagan Arabs and in that he was assisted by Christians. Islam's first alliance was with Africa's Christian King Najashi who regarded Koran to be a miracle from God!

One thing you must know about Hagia Sophia's conqueror is that he (Mehmed 2) was actually adopted and raised by a Christian Queen whom he regarded as his mother. Ottoman Sultans had a long tradition of marrying Christian women from European nobility. If we were to make a list of every single Ottoman Queen that ever lived, we will see that some of the most powerful Ottoman queens who ruled over important provinces and even led negotiations on behalf of the Ottoman Empire were in fact Christian. There is a very long list but the three notable Christian queens of the Ottoman empire that we can mention are as follows:

Theodora Khatoon, a Byzantine Princess who married Sultan Urhan in 1346. She was active in supporting the Christians living under Ottoman rule and built a lot of Churches. In 1347 she gave birth to her only son, Şhahzade Halil, who married Princess Irene, the daughter of John V Palaiologos.


Tamara Khatoon, born Kera Temara (Bulgarian: Кера Тамар&#1072:wink: was the daughter of the Bulgarian Emperor Ivan Alexander and his second wife Sarah-Theodora. Tamara was a sister of Ivan Shishman and Ivan Sratsimir. She was born in the 1340s and originates from the Shishman dynasty.


Despina Khatoon, born Mileva Olivera Lazarević, (Serbian Cyrillic: Деспина Оливера Лазаревић; 1372 – after 1444) was the youngest daughter of Lazar of Serbia and Princess Milica and the wife of Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I. After the marriage, she became Despina Hatun (Turkish for "Lady Despina").


Most of the Christian Queens of Ottoman empire followed Orthodox Christianity but some were devoutly Catholic. This meant that the Ottoman courts always hosted rivalries between Sultan’s Catholic wives and Orthodox wives. Catholic queens communicated directly with the Pope and pushed for a foreign policy that would favor the Catholic world. Orthodox queens maintained similar relations with Orthodox Church and were always pushing for an agenda that would favor Russia over Catholic Europe. In both cases they often raised Ottoman Princes and Princesses who were devout Christians. This actually helped the Ottomans because the Christian world did not want to be ruled by Muslims directly. By having Christian children in their families Ottomans were able to place their own Christian family members in important positions in Europe.


The Ottoman Sultan Mehmed (2) who conquered Constantinople is a very well-known historical figure. Yet what most people do not know about him is the fact that he was raised by his step-mother who was an Orthodox Christian queen by the name of Sultana Maria Brankovic or Sultana Mara. She was the daughter of Serbian monarch Đurađ (George) Branković and Eirene Kantakouzene. She married the father of Mehmed II, Sultan Murad II. You will notice that this woman does not carry the usual title of Khatoon (lady) after her last name. She directly entered the Ottoman court as “Emerissa” (Higher queen) and then became “Sultana” (the grand Queen.) In the history of Ottoman Queens very few women ever rose to the ranks of Sultana’s and Maria Brankovic was one of them.


Ottomans were allowed four wives at the same time. Unlike European monarchic order, the rank of a Queen in Ottoman empire came in three categories. Most queens were “Khatoons” who were given provinces as dowry. They held powers of provincial administrators and collected revenue from those provinces. Very few rose to the second rank of Emirissa. This is when the Queen would have influence outside her assigned provinces, would also have battle units and could influence the foreign policy of Ottoman Empire. Final rank was Sultana who would have her own flag, her army and many provinces. She would have most powers of the Sultan on a lesser level. Maria Brankovic came into the court as an Emirissa and became Sultana after a very short time. All her life she campaigned for her favorite stepson Mehmed II to become the next Sultan and after the death of her husband, Mehmed did go on to assume the throne. Right after becoming Sultan he assigned Maria Brankovic as his official advisor.

[FONT=&quot]
During Sultan Mehmed’s time Maria Brankovic was addressed as Valide Sultan (Queen mother.) Her powers grew to the point where members of the Orthodox Church in Russia could not appoint its members until they were approved by her. She also began negotiating foreign agreements on behalf of the Ottomans and represented the Ottoman empire during the negotiation of the Ottoman-Venetian war. [/FONT]

In the end, just like you can not hold Christianity responsible for American foreign policy, Ottoman politics are also far too complicated to be reduced to a simplistic "ISLAM VS CHRISTIANITY" affair.
 
Adam & Eve weren't born with a sin nature; they chose sin. Afterward, their offspring were born with a sin nature. I imagine the metaphysical theorizing involved could fill a book I'm not qualified to write.

Again, I have a hard time understanding these concepts. You believe they were created by god, but their imperfections are not to be attributed to the creator?






I've thought about it a lot. My dog doesn't understand a lot of what I say, think & do. God is so much higher above me than I am above my dog that I am blessed to have the opportunity to understand what I can. I aim to be God's servant, not His editor or critic.

Richard.

Hopefully the intellectual understanding of your surroundings is higher level than your dog, hence why I asked the question to you and not a dog lol.

But your answer and analogy was satisfying though, it reinforces what was already said here earlier, critical thinking has to be abandoned for it to make sense.
 

Back
Top Bottom